Printable View
I have heard you can load your own 3d objects into catalyst and map images or movies onto them like the cubs and the wonderful Tea Pot. However I am unsure what type of 3d object file Cat Requires and how to do this since I can't find any info on this subject. Can anyone be of help?
Cheers
Finn
Catalyst 4.02 + does support 3d obj models.
Create a folder called 'Models' in the same folder as the application.
Name your model files using 3 digit numbers like movie files.
000Model1XXX.obj
001Model2YYY.obj
etc...
Restart the application
Richard,Quote:
Originally Posted by samsc
As promised, I can create a whole bunch of useful OBJ 3d models for you. I think I would include about 200 of them all consisting of slightly incrementing and different degrees of curved planes both in NTSC and PAL, horizontally and vertically. I would also create a bunch of other awekward surface types such as corners and collumns so that video could be played on very skewed surfaces.
This would aid tremendously in projecting on curved screens. Previously you could only bend a screen on a very slight angle but with these curved planes, one would be able to project on a much more curved screen. This would open up a lot of possibilities for projection.
Just let me know if OBJ is the format you need them in. Otherwise let me know what format would serve you best. Any additional requests for 3d projection models come through Richard please.
Thanks,
Christian
The release version of catalyst 4 is advertised with:
Ability to import 3-D images (.obj)
But I can find no mention in the preliminary manual as to how to do this beyond:
Catalyst V4 can accept files created in Quartz Composer and 3-D .obj files.
after you install or put the software in a folder you just open the package and navigate to models then drop yous in there.
The models have to be huge so I would open one up to get an idea,
Christian
I think I see why this is undocumented!! I don't think hacking at the package resource level was what the High End sales literature had in mind!Quote:
Originally Posted by litemover
Anyway, I've got a good looking half a meg of humanoid, who looks quite funky with some suitable lurid color fx applied whirling about.
Thanks
When this feature is fully implemented it would be really useful to be able to access entire folders of models.
The model visual fx animate very well so animation sequences can be run by changing the visualfx parameter to change models 10 times a second or so.
A small 2Mb Screen capture movie of a bit of a running man can be downloaded from
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/soundan...ananimmpg4.mov
which shows the idea. (Slightly limited by the fact I can't get any model number higher than 10 to work, and the limitations of the screen capture software with Catalyst running)
animating models this way isnt really very good in catalyst- its not a very efficient use of models.
models tend to be huge - much bigger and more unwieldy than movie files.
and the modelling application is sooo much better at editing, and rendering-
why do you need it to happen live?
why not render off line to a movie???
if you had a loop of 20 300k model poses it would take up 6Mb or so , not that huge.Quote:
Originally Posted by samsc
I thought live was the whole point. Most of my work is prerendered, but ocassionally I do need to throw together a few looks for some ambient visuals with no pre-production, I think a few animated figures, would be more interesting to play with than a cardboard cut out forest.
Also I think the more possibilities included in software tools, the more amazing creative things video designers will find to do with them beyond what was originally envisaged.
i can give you more models in a test version - if you like?Quote:
Originally Posted by micpool@mac.com
Sorry get on the discussion,
But i like that...
Richard, you can email me some models ? or have it on the web for dwnload?
my email is gbortolotti@ibeamsp.com
Thanks
BTW Great job on version 4. Looks great
Gian
Do you mean more wavefront .obj files (In which case I'm fine creating my own) or the means of being able to use more of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by samsc
When will the program have the "Ability to import 3-D images (.obj)" using the user interface?
3d models have to be stored on the graphics card - which is a very limited resource compared to the hard disc. around 100MB ( on older macs ) compared to GBytes on the hard disc.Quote:
Originally Posted by micpool@mac.com
it takes more memory than you think to store models, and you can easily overload graphics memory. -
there are also serious realtime performance limits with having large models- graphics architecture related.
almost everything in 3d is much harder than it looks.
for years artists and programmers in games have struggled with very limited resources-
games might look really cute and fast - but they have been very highly optimised - with simple geometry - texture maps and things like bump maps to make it look like it has more detail than it has.
in the realtime 3d world - geometry is often very simple. the textures make it look more complex.
also you might be shocked to discover realtime games rendering is a horrible hack. almost everything is faked up and heavily optimised for specific situation...those games with nice things like soft shadows - are a horrible hack...often pre-rendered - or simplified.
offline rendering - with things like radiosity and raytracing and nice shadows - making 3d models look real - is an entirely different art - to realtime - and takes a very long time to process frames. thousands of times slower than realtime.
do not get these two confused.
you cannot do any kindof realistic rendering with realtime rendering.
thats why its better to do it as a movie...
there are a few simple ones builtinto the software.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gian
they are a visual fx.
there are many places to download models on the net -
like
http://turbosquid.com/
I look at the model feature to enable one to project on very obtuse or nonlevel surfaces such as arcs and the like without muddling up the image. A good example are when production designers make wings on the Grammy's to project on. Originally those wings were 3d convex and concave wings that needed a model mask for each segment in order for the image not to distor. They had to eventually flatten out the wings so that the content wouldn't distort.
Richard is correct about rendering in games. It's a farce. Caustics, shadows, fire, nearly every effect is not done in the way you would if you were rendering out to a movie. It is faked. If you saw the geometry of game characters, stripped of their bump, normal, and texture maps, they would look like grey humanoids with no features. I wouldn't expect Catalyst or any video playback software to be able to mimic this though there are some cool things that can be done with hight maps and shaders to look like 3d. A hieght map is a gradient black and white image and there are some open gl shaders that could be implemented to create some interesting stuff.
That being said, I really look at Catalyst as a great playback program with some very cool efects and options.
Christian Choi
Catalyst 4.02 + does support 3d obj models.Quote:
Originally Posted by FinnRoss
Create a folder called 'Models' in the same folder as the application.
Name your model files using 3 digit numbers like movie files.
000Model1XXX.obj
001Model2YYY.obj
etc...
Restart the application
I think it's a brilliant implementation being able to use models to straighten out non planar geometry that you want to be able to project on. There have been many instances when production designers have come to me wanting to be able to project on non planar or curved projection screens and it's always been a bain because I couldn't before. This option really adds to the funtionality of Catalyst.
A really easy to use and great piece of software that is MAC compatible and creates .OBJ models is Modo 202. It's very very intuitive and you can create anything from very simple models to extremely complex ones in a fraction of the time it takes to model in Maya. It costs around $695 or $895.
XSI foundation for PC or linux only is also a great modeler, animator, shader, and widely used overal 3d package for only $495.
Most studios are migrating to XSI 6 foundation for most of their front end work and then importing the models via XSI crosstalk technology into Houdini or Maya to light and shade via Renderman plugs.
If you ust want to be able to easily create models without animating them and need an easy to learn package that works within Mac, I would purchase Modo. If you want a more full featured package that allows you to do everything from dynamics, modeling, shading, Rigging, and rendering I would purchase XSI foundation, that is if you don't mind working with it in a PC environment.
Cheers.
Christian Choi
It is worth checking out Hexagon 2 at Daz 3d. Only $149 and a good intuitive modeler.
Works hand in hand with Carrara 5 which does animation also.
Cheers
Toby
Back to importing an .obj file, I have done all the steps and can't get it to appear in the visual effects control. Does anyone have a sample .obj file they can post so I can try? I have been trying with files found on the net, and that may be the problem. Any help would be appreciated
please email me your model.
3d models are very very finicky.
I've created 2 models from 2 separate applications and they work fine for me. I used Modo 201 for the first one, and Maya for the second.
Didn't need to do anything special except name them correctly. I named them 000model1football.obj, and 001model8wierdsphere.obj.
I would post them but I can't upload them here as the file manager needs to accept objs.
It works fine though. Double check that you have put them in the app directory and named them with a 3 digit number then model then a number then your description.obj. I did it just like how it was explained to me and it works. It might be possible that your normals are facing the wrong direction and you are seeing the back of your model. Try either rotating your model or camera if you are using a model that has only one side to it.
Make sure to frame up the model and export the model only not the entire scene. Also make sure not to export any materials with the model.
Christian Choi
i added the obj file type- but you should zip them- really.
one of the big advantages of obj files - is that they are text files - and they have a small number of features- so its not totally impossible to look at them a see incorrect things.
---
3d models are tough -
if you use maya and modo - - they do the right thing - most of the time.
i use maya, formz, cinema4d, concepts 3d -i tried modo. i can just make models work.
I have been able to get proper texture maps and uv coordinates out of cinema 4d - with non-mangled vertices -
I also sometimes have to resort to windows based 3d file translation programs.
but it sometimes takes lot of wrangling to make 3d - even transfering files from one 3d program to another, can be traumatic and difficult.
Here's a simple checklist of things to do to create models that will absolutely show up under any circumstances.
1. Use polys only, no Nurbs, Sub-ds, or anything else.
2. Only use quad faces, no n-gons or triangulated faces.
3. Make sure your object is oriented toward the Z camera
4. Make sure to follow richards instructions on how to name the models exactly.
5. Make sure to output only the selected model not the entire scene.
6. check you scale, if it is in mm, your model may be so small that it will look like a pinhole. If you have been working in very small units, just double check that you aren't making models that are too small.
7. try to use double sided geometry, i.e not planes. Instead of a plane use a very thin cube primitive, this way you are guaranteed not to have any reversed faces.
8. If you need to use planes, turn on your normals and make sure they face the Z axis. Catalyst seems to orient the model towards the Z axis.
If you're still having problem try outputting your model without any shading or bump/displacement.
Z axis on many modeling packages is not height it is depth as in from the cameras point of veiw. Only in architectural and 3dmax is Z up and down. You can change this preference in most packages so that Z isup.
I know that if you follow these steps your model should work. Experiment though in your spare time and try all types of geometry and faces. I'm not saying that they won't work, I just know what will.
Anyone with any in depth 3d questions, feel free to pm me and post here.
Christian
I have a very simple arc I'm looking to shoot onto. Here's the setup:
3 projectors tiled (not blended) shooting onto a single arc (120' long w/ 70' radius). The projectors are each centered and squared up with their individual portions of the screen, so you could basically treat it like 3 separate and identical arcs. The "screen" is actually a curtain with fullness, so that will cover a little bit of distortion.
Do I need to create a model for this arc, or will catalyst handle the curved surface through internal settings (i.e. mix settings, etc.)?
Thanks.
Definitely use the curved screen submix. It's very reliable, I would try to get a Triplehead2go on it so that you can just use same layer and it will be guaranteed to stay in sync.
This way you could control the 3 way tile with one long piece or 3 separate pieces if you want. If you don't need to spread one image all the way across, I would still use the internal curved screen control on the submixes that you are needing for and use 2 machines for it, unless of course it is a very small resolution screen...
Alternatively, if you need absolute seamless screen blending with point control for luminosity, you could use a Spider but to me it sounds like Submix curve screen would work just fine in this situation. Even Catalysts Blending is completely and totally awesome, stack right up to a spider with a few small exceptions.
Hope this helps
Kindly,
Christian Choi
Thanks Christian,
The triplehead solution is exactly what we have planned. If it was just three separate images then distortion at the edges wouldn't be such a big deal. It's because we want to throw a panoramic image up on our panoramic screen that it has to be relatively clean. I'll play with submix curves. Thanks.
u need to make sure that you aren't using old G5 1.8ghz or 2ghz ppc machines that have only 512mb of memory if you go with the tripleheads. You really should have at least a dual 2.5 ppc or macintel with 2gb or higher mem and you need a dual link video card on the machine that you are using the triplehead2go on, also, don't mix and match resolutions, keep the general default settings in the tripleheads and don't futz with them and you'll be right. , Catalyst like the same resolutions out of each of the outputs of the triplehead.Quote:
Originally Posted by joshgubler
BTW, the blending in Cat is awesome, very reliable and even with HD. You should try blending your submixes so they are seamless.
Hope that helps.
cc
Christian
nothing less than intel or quad g5. pci-eQuote:
Originally Posted by litemover
doing the resolutions required 2400x600 or 3072x768 isnt even properly supported on older graphics cards.
We've already done a couple of shows using 2 tripleheads, so I'm sure we will be fine here since we're only using one. Are you saying that I need to run my preview monitor at 1024x768 and my triplehead at 3072x768 (I know the machine can handle this as I've run both outputs at 3072x768)? Or can I run my preview monitor higher? We're doing all of the programming through the hud for this show, so it would really help to have as big a preview monitor as possible.
I think edge blending would be cleaner as well, but my designer has done a test shoot and he's convinced that tiling is clean enough. He's afraid of loosing intensity by having to spread each of the projectors over a larger area.
vga refresh rates on multiple monitors can interfere-Quote:
Originally Posted by joshgubler
sometimes it works sometimes it doesnt.
60Hz isnt exactly 60Hz 75Hz isnt 75Hz.
at 1280x1024 its 59.98 and 1024x768 its 60.02 - things like this- at different resolutions the refresh is different
you set one screen to one resolution and the other to another - and the real refresh rates cannot be handled very well.
you have to test.
its much better on intel machines. but not good on older g5's
'edge' blending isnt just a computer thing - it can be the projector angle, the projector brightnesses, color temperature, angle of incidence, screen gain. all sorts of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by joshgubler
projecting a image onto a screen - has falloff to the edges because the light has travelled further, and light falloffs is 1/(distance squared )
Trust me on this, if you can blend, even a little bit, it will look so much better. With even the slightest overlap of two butted edges, your intensity increases and it is very noticeable.Quote:
Originally Posted by joshgubler
Something of a concern, you mention 120'. That would mean a single projected image size of 30'x40'.Quote:
Originally Posted by joshgubler
I am not sure what projectors you are using but that is a huge image.
I typically use LX-100 10k projectors and the largest size I would ever shoot is 18'x24' and that is in low light. Even if you are using a 20k projector, 30x40 is still huge and will only be about a tenth as bright as a typical screen.
If you're worried about running everything off of a single Catalyst, remember you can use 2 TH2Gs and run 5 projectors and put your HUD on one of the six outputs.
I have some intensity equations if you're interested.
Catalyst Blending works great, even at high Def.
If you need it to look better, work with the projectionist to do a dual blend between the projectors and Catalyst simultaneously, set a blend of around 20 to 35%, leave up the alignment marks then let the projectionist work out the rest of it.
If you are working in an extreme situation with a rediculous amount of souces that need to blended, composited, PIP, pixel adds, etc..., and don't want any hastles, USE A SPYDER and don't cheap out.
You can see everything that a Spyder does here: Vistasystems
For most cases though, Cat edge blending and a combination of projectionist will/knowledge will go a long way so treat your projectionist with class.
CC
What do you mean by this, "Dual blend between the projectors and Catalyst?"Quote:
Originally Posted by litemover
What are the costs of the different Spyders and are they worth it?Quote:
Originally Posted by litemover
Thanks for your concerns, SourceChild.
We did the show back in Sept. It went really well. I'm pretty sure the projectors were 21k. Plenty bright for the live audience, but a little dim on camera. It would have been nice to have them doubled stacked.
As I mentioned earlier, our projection screen was actually a white scrim curtain with fullness. Because of that, the edges were undetectable. Seriously, I had trouble finding them sometimes...and I knew they were there!
As far as alignment goes...catalyst's "curved screen test" works great. I just had the projectionist center each projector and fill the screen with the excess shooting beyond the screen. Then I tweaked the control points until everything lined up. Piece of cake.
Hey Christian,Quote:
Originally Posted by litemover
Can you please help. I have followed your advice....so chuffed to find it....and ensured my obj's meet the checklist points. Im working in Maya and Catalyst 4.40 m466B. The 3D object is a fairly simple shape: a scale model of a fashion show catwalk. I want to use the obj to keystone my mix to the catwalk. I have had this working back in 2009...Im sure I have....but can't seem to replicate now.
Ive been slightly confused between trying to use the VFX 160 approach(which doesnt seem to display or be affected by my model...there is no sign that my model is there at all when I use this approach) Attachment 846 and using the Model Screen option in the Mix Options which does allow me to select my Model:Attachment 847.
The closest Ive managed is with the Model Screen approach where an orthographic view of my model from front has shown up in centre of mix with red and green crosshairs either side/ top and bottom. This doesnt seem to be editable in any way though...or rotatable etc... and layer image/input doesnt display anywhere ....just a white empty shape.
Can you please shed some light on this for me?.....many many thanks....eel free to ask for more screenies or report or more info/ files if it might help?
Cheers,
Henry
Christian left the forum years ago
Hey Nev,
Thanks for letting me know-thought that might be the case as his post was so old...but couldn't find anyone else talking about the same thing quite so usefully. In the end Ive started using V5 instead and the 3D object features seem to be a lot more intuitive in there....very very impressed with V5! Frustrating that I didn't manage to replicate what I had previously managed in V4 but no point bashing my head against that brick wall if I don't have to.
Many thanks,
Henry